marharth Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 If they can be on a top secret kill list, you can be on a top secret kill list. I don't aid terrorists, or, make videos talking about how I am going to bring down the Great Satan either. These folks may have been tried in absentia, and found guilty, and sentenced to death. Or, given the preponderance of evidence, their guilt was obvious. Also, keep in mind, these folks were actively engaged in war against the united states. We sniped an awful lot of folks without a trial in Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other war we have been involved in. Simply being an american citizen doesn't give them some magical blanket of protection. If you are going to be/aid/abet terrorists, expect a bullet without a trial first. I don't care what citizenship you claim.They were not enemy combatants. If they were it would have not been a assassination. I beg to differ. They were indeed the enemy, and they got what they deserved.It doesn't matter if they were the enemy or not, it matters that they were not combatants. You might say that it was fair to kill them since they were propaganda agents for Al Qeuda, but it still violates then constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 If they can be on a top secret kill list, you can be on a top secret kill list. I don't aid terrorists, or, make videos talking about how I am going to bring down the Great Satan either. These folks may have been tried in absentia, and found guilty, and sentenced to death. Or, given the preponderance of evidence, their guilt was obvious. Also, keep in mind, these folks were actively engaged in war against the united states. We sniped an awful lot of folks without a trial in Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other war we have been involved in. Simply being an american citizen doesn't give them some magical blanket of protection. If you are going to be/aid/abet terrorists, expect a bullet without a trial first. I don't care what citizenship you claim.They were not enemy combatants. If they were it would have not been a assassination. I beg to differ. They were indeed the enemy, and they got what they deserved.It doesn't matter if they were the enemy or not, it matters that they were not combatants. You might say that it was fair to kill them since they were propaganda agents for Al Qeuda, but it still violates then constitution. Hitler was a non-combatant as well. Would we have been out of line assassinating him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 If they can be on a top secret kill list, you can be on a top secret kill list. I don't aid terrorists, or, make videos talking about how I am going to bring down the Great Satan either. These folks may have been tried in absentia, and found guilty, and sentenced to death. Or, given the preponderance of evidence, their guilt was obvious. Also, keep in mind, these folks were actively engaged in war against the united states. We sniped an awful lot of folks without a trial in Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other war we have been involved in. Simply being an american citizen doesn't give them some magical blanket of protection. If you are going to be/aid/abet terrorists, expect a bullet without a trial first. I don't care what citizenship you claim.They were not enemy combatants. If they were it would have not been a assassination. I beg to differ. They were indeed the enemy, and they got what they deserved.It doesn't matter if they were the enemy or not, it matters that they were not combatants. You might say that it was fair to kill them since they were propaganda agents for Al Qeuda, but it still violates then constitution. Hitler was a non-combatant as well. Would we have been out of line assassinating him?Hitler was not a US citizen and is not protected under the US constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keanumoreira Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Wasn't the first time the American Government violated the Constitution for security measures. One very famous example can be found under president Abraham Lincoln, who, if anyone here knows their history, suspended Habeas Corpus to calm unruly masses during the outbreak of the Civil War. There are times when we need to betray what we originally stand for so that those rights may continue to stand by us. Now in this case, I'm not exactly sure if this was the most appropriate action to take. However, if they were indeed terrorists, and have connections to organizations that want to bring America harm, then I have no problem with what has happened. The only real thing that worries me is if this action is abused. What you say may be true, but that doesn't make it right. It doesn't matter if Lincoln did it, or Bush did it, or Obama did it. Jefferson said it best when he wrote: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin Some people add onto the end of that quote, "...And they will end up with neither." While he Jefferson did not say that last part, I think it rings true as well. It's important to note that I am quoting him not because he is a framer of the constitution, and is therefore right, I am quoting him because it is true as evidenced by Germany, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea. If we are to go about policing the world, (and we shouldn't,) we should also try to lead by example, and at least try to keep a moral high-ground. Never said it was right or wrong, and frankly, I don't know which to decide. I just want to remind people that stuff like this happens for a reason, and it can be justified. Am I saying it is justified in this case? No, I'm not, because I don't know who those men were, who they were working for, or if they were even working for anyone at all. I just wanted to throw that out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Hitler was not a US citizen and is not protected under the US constitution. Don't care. These guys were aiding our declared enemies. So far as I am concerned, that makes them our enemies as well. Best way to deal with your enemies? Kill 'em. (in this particular case. I am NOT advocating taking out your business competitor......) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Hitler was not a US citizen and is not protected under the US constitution. Don't care. These guys were aiding our declared enemies. So far as I am concerned, that makes them our enemies as well. Best way to deal with your enemies? Kill 'em. (in this particular case. I am NOT advocating taking out your business competitor......)Once again, it does not matter if you like it or not. It is still illegal. I get your point in the sense that they are the enemy, but the constitution still protects them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintii Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) War is no longer exclusively one country fighting against another country ... it is now individuals carrying out acts of violence against individuals of another country ... So, if the battleground has changed then it's just natural that you should adapt to the "playing field". If they meant harm to the US or anyone else, well then I reckon they got their ticket punched and rightfully so, it's war. I understand that it's neccessary to follow the rule of Law, but this is not a civil case, this was warfare ... Edited October 13, 2011 by Nintii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Its not considered warfare if the person was not a combatant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juderodney Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Then what should have been done with him? Let him continue developing plans to kill U.S. personnel? Risk U.S. personnel in capturing him? I haven't chosen a side, yet, but I am almost certain that any arrest attempt would have been met with deadly force and end up with more dead people than the predator drone did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sendo75 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) I agree that this is violation of the Constitution but if this is a case of picking the lesser of 2 evils, it might be the better to violate the Constitution and save thousands of lives in the process. Seems all the important factors are unknown so I suppose we debate with hypothetical scenarios? So here comes the concern about crossing the line and abusing this authority. Imho, one acceptable reason to risk breaking the law and kill a suspected terrorist instead of incarceration is if this was the only way to stop an impending mass destruction. The authorities will never take this lightly after 9/11 and they might not have the luxury of time for an arrest & trial. Its debatable whether the authorities have sufficient evidence to execute an assassination and I can't think of any other reason they would need to assassinate and risk the backlash. I don't support the legality of such assassination and I believe heavy penalties should be incurred for taking the risk whether they turn out to be right or wrong. If they wish to save thousands by breaking the law, they should pay for it with self sacrifice. Edited October 13, 2011 by sendo75 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts